Scribd
Upload
144 views1 page

Aldersgate v. Gauuan

The RTC erred in dismissing the case between ALDERSGATE COLLEGE INC. and JUNIFEN F. GAUUAN et al. The case involved an intra-corporate dispute over issues such as withdrawals from corporate funds and auditing. However, according to the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading in cases involving an intra-corporate dispute. Respondents had filed several motions to dismiss, which the RTC should not have entertained.

Uploaded by

Stef Turiano Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
144 views1 page

Aldersgate v. Gauuan

The RTC erred in dismissing the case between ALDERSGATE COLLEGE INC. and JUNIFEN F. GAUUAN et al. The case involved an intra-corporate dispute over issues such as withdrawals from corporate funds and auditing. However, according to the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading in cases involving an intra-corporate dispute. Respondents had filed several motions to dismiss, which the RTC should not have entertained.

Uploaded by

Stef Turiano Peralta
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

ALDERSGATE COLLEGE INC., et al v. JUNIFEN F.

GAUUAN et al

GR No. 192951 | Nov 14, 2012


DOCTRINE OF THE CASE: A motion to dismiss is a prohibited pleading in cases which involve an
intra-corporate dispute.
____________________________________________________________________________

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

FACTS: Petitioners filed a case against the respondents before the SEC. When the SEC was
reorganized pursuant to R.A. 8799, the case was transferred to the RTC. A Pre-Trial Order was
issued and provided several issues such as whether the withdrawals and disbursements are in
accordance with the By-Laws; whether there was a complete, audited report and accounting of
all the corporate funds; whether respondents are liable to indemnify the school for all sums of
money withdrawn and paid for without the approval and counter-signature of the chairman;
whether there was a demand of a right of inspection and a refusal to allow inspection and which
of the contending trustees and officers are legally elected in accordance with the By-Laws.
Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint but such was denied. Respondents also
sought the dismissal of the complaint in their Answer-in-Intervention with Motion to Dismiss.
RTC again brushed it aside. Then the respondents again filed a Motion to Withdraw and/or to
Dismiss Case. They claim that the incumbent members of the Board of Trustees of petitioner
had recently passed a resolution which sought the dismissal and/or withdrawal of the case. RTC
granted the motion on the basis of such Board of Trustees’ resolution.

ISSUE: Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the case.

HELD:
Yes. RTC should not have entertained the subject motion to dismiss
Under Section 8, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies, a motion
to dismiss is a prohibited pleading. As this case involves an intra-corporate dispute, the motion to
dismiss is undeniably a prohibited pleading.

SUMMARY FORMAT

Q: Respondents filed a motion to dismiss the complaint filed against them where some of the issues
include whether the withdrawals and disbursements are in accordance with the By-Laws and
whether there was a complete, audited report and accounting of all the corporate funds. The RTC
dismissed the case. Is the RTC correct?

A: No. Based on Section 8, Rule 1 of the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate
Controversies, in cases involving an intra-corporate dispute, a motion to dismiss is a prohibited
pleading.

You might also like